1. Defendant A: (a) KRW 21,600,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 16, 2013 to March 27, 2014; and (b) March 28, 2014 for the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-1-2 and 1-2-2 of the evidence No. 1-2 and the evidence No. 1-1, Defendant B, on behalf of the Plaintiff, requested the Plaintiff to mediate a lease agreement with respect to accommodation facilities of 8rd floor (hereinafter “instant accommodation facilities”) on the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s broker, entered into a lease agreement with D on behalf of the Defendant on March 13, 2013 as to the instant accommodation facilities of this case, with a deposit of 1.2 billion won, monthly rent of 28 million won, and the above lease agreement was signed and sealed by the Plaintiff as the broker in the course of entering into the lease agreement, and Article 8 of the above lease agreement provides that “Real estate broker and the lessee shall not be liable for the nonperformance of this contract. In addition, at the same time, both parties to the contract shall pay the brokerage commission, which is null and void or cancelled without the intention or negligence of the broker, and that the amount of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A may not be agreed.

According to the above facts, Defendant A is obligated to pay brokerage fees pursuant to Article 8 of the above lease agreement to the Plaintiff who has arranged the lease contract for the accommodation of this case, and considering the fact that the amount is 0.9% of the transaction price of the real estate of this case and the upper limit of the rate of real estate brokerage commission as prescribed by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance according to the delegation of the relevant statutes, it is reasonable to set 21.6 million won (60% of the brokerage commission calculated as 0.9% of the upper limit).

The plaintiff sought a payment of brokerage commission against the defendant B on the ground that the defendant B promised to pay brokerage commission, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, so the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified.